I do think an oscar nomination will be happening. And it pains me to say that, since it will likely come at Abbie Cornish's expense, and because I have no desire at all to see The Blind Side. And because it was just a few months ago that I kept seeing promos for All About Steve and thinking, "yikes, Sandy, why have you stooped so low??"

But that film's ancient history, apparently.

The globes will tell the tale. If they double-nom her, as they are wont to do with big stars having big years, all bets are off. I could even see her winning the drama globe, which really worries me.

...possibly even more bankable right now than Will Smith, now that she has two movies this year that made/will make $100M domestic when I would have bet the house at the beginning of the year that neither would.

I really think she can be a game changer if the buzz and the campaign prevail.

Not in a 'Erin Brokovich' kind of way because, well, everybody in 00' expected Roberts to deliver when handed a good role with a respected director and a good screenplay and almost everyone in Hollywood wanted Julia to succeed (like they did with Reese Witherspoon and like they do with Amy Adams by these days and like they are waiting to do with McAdams - I think - eventually) and we all knew the Oscar wasn't going to someone else other than her.

But I think she can do it. Unless, of course, Saoirse Ronan delivers one hell of a performance (which I think she will) and ends with her buzz.

Meryl Streep, Carey Mulligan, Gabby Sidibe and Helen Mirren seem assured. The last spot will go either to Cornish/Ronan or, if things are really that bad, Bullock.

But can we really adjust to call Sandra Bullock an Academy Award Nominee?

Can you imagine seeing in films in the likes of The Proposal and All About Steve the following: «Starring Sandra Bullock, Academy Award Nominee»?

Despite all this, I think Cornish is still the most probable 5th nominee...

I think that Bright Star itself will influence Cornish's chances. If the movie fares well (gathers some nominations), I think she's in. If the movie struggles, she's out. It will ultimately come down to the Globes. If the Globes double-stamp Bullock (you know they want to) and if other precursors (BFCA, BAFTA...) pass over Cornish... I think she's a goner.

But then again, we all thought Melissa Leo was out and there she was. Even with Winslet's category fraud and with Angelina Jolie. (although it did cost Hawkins her nomination... ouch it still stings...!)

yeah, it's funny how online buzz works. just a few days ago everyone was thinking it was locked up for Cotillard and now everyone is acting like that didn't happen and that fifth spot is Bullocks.

never mind that the Last Station team is being so slow to really cement Helen Mirren as a competitor.

I think it's still the trinity of possible winners (Streep, Mulligan, Sidibe) and a very competitive race for the 4th and 5th spots with Mirren very very likely if they promote the film well and the 5th spot very hard to judge at the moment given that we haven't seen any precursors yet and given that the buzz on Cotillard and Bullock is at fever pitch (due to film openings/screenings... and that's always when the fever pitch happens. the fever doesn't always last) but anyone else could still turn things around since we've got two months until nominations still.

is likeable because of her lack of ambition.Which is totally fine. She's making a lot of money and has her life to herself. She's nothing special in the movies, but never embarassing. I somehow can't imagine her "trying" to get an Oscar. And I don't think she's taken seriously enough to get this nom.

And can somebody tell me how in the hell is this movie racist? I'm black and saw no problem with it. If it had been a white kid she had taken in from harsh circumstances, would that have made it better? It happened? Oher came from the hood. Wasn't taught in school due to poor funding in black public schools (which happens). The Blind Side and Precious have to have some of the most misinformed critics ever. It's ridiculous.

Also, would she really have won for MDB? The nod I can see, but maybe the Oscar would've gone to Bening or Staunton. I don't think Beelzebub (sorry, almost called her by her birth name, what was I thinking?) was nom worthy, but she was better than Bullock woulda been. She woulda lost, says I.

a very likely oscar nominee. I mean they often put uneven contenders in the same category, daring performances with more conventional ones. So she could totally replace Abbie Cornish in the best actress category. The Oscars usually aren't about subtle performances, look at the past years noms...so I'm still going to keep my fingers crossed for Mulligan and Sidibe, you never know...

overrated. I don't think she's much of an actress and I never did understand why so many men find her attractive. As a straight man I find her just underneath Jennifer Aniston on the Scale of Attractiveness (and I don't find Jennifer Aniston attractive at all, except when she was playing a psycho on 30 Rock).

I haven't seen The Blind Side (it's not out here and since it's about American football it will probably flop terribly when it does, although if anyone can make Aussies see a movie about gridiron then it's Sandra Bullock. Denzel Washington couldn't do it well, either) but I am actually sort of hoping she gets nominated just to, as somebody else said, watch people's head explode.

As in a "how dare Oscar voters prefer this woman who at 45 years old has achieved the two biggest hits of her career and who is liked by everybody in the business for a movie that, if nominated, would be the highest grossing nominee BY FAR to, oh I dunno, that French chick who isn't really in her movie very much or the Australian actress who nobody outside of film circles knows about? HOW?!?" sort of way.

Besides, I probably would have nominated for Speed in all honesty. Watch it again and look at what Bullock does. It's far more than many of the "respectable" stuff that we're told makes a better performance.

Say what you will about her, but for a woman to be aged 45 and have the biggest hits of her career is something to nod your head to and go "well done".

She's generally a smart actress who actually built her career before trying to be the respectable actress in movies that don't make money, ya know?

You're right ZiZo, I can't speak for other countries... Let's just put it this way: in Italy nobody says "Let's go watching the new Sandra Bullock movie!" and I think that's because she doesn't have enough star wattage, she's not SUPER in any way, she's just too plain... Vice versa, Julia Roberts has a Bigger than life quality, or at least her smile does!

...the oldest holder ever of the title "America's Sweetheart." Eat your heart out, Meg Ryan (someone I have never thought was attractive or talented in the least. Sandra Bullock's success is much more easy to understand, as she infinitely more likable.)

2) For some reason hated less than Julia Roberts (I mean Roberts is by far more admirable than Bullock)

I think it's because Julia Roberts has a lot of baggage in her personal life. Not all of it is known to everyone since she's been pretty lowkey about it, but I could see how some things might turn people away. Mostly though, I think it's been the smug after she won an Oscar, and she smugly kept going on and on about Danny Moder marriage and him being a prince among men or some other BS, and the whole jumping on Denzel during his moment which was somewhat like her Tom Cruise jumping on the couch moment. Not quite that bad, but I feel that moment was the real turning point in her being America's Sweetheart to her being replaced by Reese Witherspoon, since the smugness turns fans off.

In comparison, I think Sandra Bullock really is as nice as she mostly comes across onscreen, and so far imo hasn't come across as smug. I do wish though that Duplicity and Roberts were getting the kind of buzz Bullock and The Blind Side are now getting because Duplicity didn't deserve to flop like it did, and Roberts isn't afraid to take chances even if she doesn't pull it off. Even if she seems like she would be mega bitchy in real life, I respect her a lot more for taking risks since she didn't have to.

. . .kinda boring.

Also, would she really have won for MDB? The nod I can see, but maybe the Oscar would've gone to Bening or Staunton. I don't think Beelzebub (sorry, almost called her by her birth name, what was I thinking?) was nom worthy, but she was better than Bullock woulda been. She woulda lost, says I.

Agree on both counts, and again the boring is probably why she is so popular because she's very lowkey about her personal life, and I think people relate to her seeming so modest and homey who acts more like a real life person instead of a celebrity.

As for if she had been in M$B instead of Beelzebub, I'm not sure she would have won either or even been nominated for that matter. Not that Beelzebub is the best actress ever of course, but it's hard to say how much would have stayed the same and how much would have changed had Bullock done the part instead. She wouldn't have brought that Oscar winner pedigree that Beelzebub did, but then again, M$B could have been her Monster or Erin's Brockovich since I'm still going to be firm and believe that The Blindside isn't going to be her Oscar vehicle.

I think Best Actress is becoming much more fluid now. I have a feeling Streep, Sidibe and Mulligan aren't quite as super-locked as it seemed... at least not compared to Bullock, Mirren, etc.

After seeing An Education, I was not overly impressed with the film, and don't really want Mulligan to win for it. Her buzz has cooled, also.

And Sidibe made that comment on Letterman that's getting all this play, and while I don't think it was as big a deal as many do, it does make me rethink her chances, especially for the win. I think there will be a bit of a backlash (wow, I almost typed "blacklash"... Freudian slip) against her newness and her luck in getting this role.

And Streep's role was really leightweight, and there may be vote-splitting with her other film.

Cornish's movie barely made a blip on the radar, unfortunately, and people don't seem to be rooting for her.

And now here's Bullock in this huge hit, having a great year. But she's still... Sandra Bullock.

So, everyone has negatives, is what I'm saying. It feels very fluid. Depends on precursors.

@RichAunt-- well if it aint going to be her Oscar vehicle it sure is a great set up before the spike or what have you... (i don't know sports) in that if she did something challenging right now to follow it up there would surely be momentum.

and people are giving Swank too much credit for M$B. It's often roles that win Oscars, not precursors. And even if Bullock had been less good than Swank, it would have seemed like a "omg" moment to have her in that role and "omg" against/type challenges also win oscars. Particularly for very big stars the whole 'we didn't know you had it in you phenom'

I typically find words like 'racist' and 'sexist' to be utterly useless (not least because they cause conversations to devolve into 'is it or isn't it' without ever really saying much of anything worthwhile). So I'm not concerned about whether The Blind Side is 'semi- racist' or not.

But for my part, when I first saw the preview I was a bit embarrassed by it. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with the concept of the movie. It's that there have been so many movies like this, to the point where it begins to feel like a pat on the back to white people for their benevolence to black people. There's nothing wrong with people wanting to feel good about themselves, but with this type of storyline becoming such a cliche, it turns into something that is self-serving self-congratulation, not to mention a bit patronizing.

I don't know. I don't find the movie offensive really, just that they're coming out with yet another movie like this kind of annoying and embarrassing.

It's a real story though. I wouldn't be so quick to scream racism this time in this story over something that actually happened. It's not the case of a group of white filmmakers just wanting to make themselves look good or making black folks look helpless and hopeless. The rich white folks did help the downtrodden, borderline stunted black kid out of poverty and violence into a better life. You can call it opportunistic, cliche, boring, uninspired, etc., but at least it's real. That's something I actually appreciated while watching this.

@RichAunt-- well if it aint going to be her Oscar vehicle it sure is a great set up before the spike or what have you... (i don't know sports) in that if she did something challenging right now to follow it up there would surely be momentum.

I agree, but I guess I just didn't see it as movie that she made just for Oscar. She just got lucky because it was well received critically and commercially, but I don't think she purposefully did it like a lot of stars do in order to win an Oscar. I guess she could still end up winning (I'm still holding out though that she's not going to be nominated), but if not, she'd definitely be in a strong position if she follows it up with something on the same level.

and people are giving Swank too much credit for M$B. It's often roles that win Oscars, not precursors. And even if Bullock had been less good than Swank, it would have seemed like a "omg" moment to have her in that role and "omg" against/type challenges also win oscars. Particularly for very big stars the whole 'we didn't know you had it in you phenom'

True, it could have went that way, since that does happen very often, but the movie could have turned out much differently to with her in it. If she had done merely okay with the role and everything else was the same, I think she would have won that time. I don't know how many of the other elements would have remained the same though. It's like with Titanic. It probably still would have made some money had different actors been cast like Christian Bale and Gwyneth Paltrow, but I think it would have been an entirely different movie.

This conversation about Bullock's hypothetical Oscar story with M$B makes me think that Michelle Pfeiffer (Jonathan Demme's original choice) would've won for Silence of the Lambs instead of another statue for Jodie. Just sayin.

Alex -- i absolutely agree. Pfeiffer would have won for SILENCE... and she would have been EXCELLENT in the part, too, because she does the steel with vulnerability really well.

But she has never been that smart about her career choices. The list of things she's turned down is depressing. And that case is particularly maddening. You have a director as talented as Demme proclaiming you his favorite actress and he just helped you through your breakthrough year (1988) and to a Golden Globe nomination? and he offers you another juicy challenging role right after you've lost the Oscar many thought you'd win and you turn the role down???? ARGH.

strangely, unlike many stars, she doesn't often work with a director twice. There've only been two (Michael Hoffman and Stephen Frears)

I agree that Pfeiffer probably would've won in 1991, if only because it would've been right on the heels of Baker Boys. And she would've been good in the role, I suppose, but honestly I can't imagine she would've been as good as Jodie. As in the M$B analogy, it would've become an ENTIRELY different movie. And, IMO, probably not as good a movie. Foster was passionate about that part, lobbied hard to get it, had very strong ideas about it, and knocked it out of the park.

The fact that Pfeiffer was so reluctant about it - apparently because of the violence - says to me that she wouldn't have thrown herself into it in the same way, and wouldn't have delivered the way the role demanded. And I guess she knew that, and thus said no.

But really, it has to be said that between her turning down so many great roles and her nonchalance about campaigning, it's really her own fault that she's never won. Well, her and Jessica Tandy. But if she'd really wanted it, it woulda happened at some point. I doubt she cares that much.

I remember Demme saying that Pfeiffer thought it was too violent. Maybe it was different on paper? I don't remember it being excessively violent. It couldn't have been anything worse than what Pfeiffer did in BATMAN RETURNS. Emma Thompson turned it down too. Wouldn't that have been great?

She was also signed on to do THELMA AND LOUISE with Jodie (presumably with Michelle playing Thelma and Jodie playing Louise, though it could've easily been reversed.)

In regards to what Adam was saying, I agree that Best Actress is looking cloudier and that not even Streep/Sidibe/Mulligan. I keep going back to 2003 and imagining even Streep falling out. Who knows though, really.

I agree, Glenn. I too could actually see Streep falling out, possibly... I know a lot of people who think J & J was pure fluff and that she doesn't deserve awards per se.

I think Streep, Mulligan, Sidibe, Bullock, Mirren, Cornish, and Ronan are still on a much more even keel than people assume... and I'd like to think Swinton factors in there somewhere, too (though I do think, now that the category's crowded up, Cotillard will be put back where she belongs, one way or another).

Even GG drama has one too many contenders for comfort... and I don't think Swinton and Swank are totally out of that race either...

is totally NOT getting an Oscar nomination! I can't believe so many people on here are talking about this ludicrous notion as if it's already set in stone. And some of you (adam k.) are making the claim without even having seen the movie. Friends, Bullock was pretty good, but golden boy material this most certainly is not, no matter how many times Pete Hack-mond rambles on about it being the best work of the rom-com queen's career. The Academy has surely had its blunders, but a nom for Bullock seems utterly implausible. And if she does squeak in and knock the lovely Abbie Cornish out of the race, you can bet my head will be one of the ones exploding.

No I have not seen the film - I don't particularly want to, but I suppose I should now - but since when does deserving the nomination have anything to do with it?

I'd love to be wrong, as I LOVED Cornish's performance, but I think a Bullock nom would have little to do with the film and much more to do with her career, the year she's having, and a possible double globe nom which would make her ubiquitous throughout the season.

I admit I'm flying somewhat blind in my speculation, but come on, weird shit happens when movies make oodles of money. Hello, Ghost. My Big Fat Greek Wedding. And total pap can get nominated for best actress if there's a campaign. Hello, Chocolat.

^^^ Over Julia and Ellen? In the words of the dearly departed Angie Tempura, "Bitttcchh, pleeeeeease!"

And when did all of this Sandra Bullock's getting an Oscar nomination happened? Just b/c this film made a lot of money (like duh, what else were families going to see over Thanksgiving? "New Moon"? That apocalypse movie?)? Or b/c of "The Proposal"? I've seen bunches of Sandra Bullock movies over the years, and honestly, I don't think she's overdue for anything. I might have nodded her for "Crash"? She does her thing with the rom coms and that's fine, but thinking she's Oscar-worthy for something many other actresses could have done? I don't know about this one. But it's throwing a wrench into this boring Oscar race this year, so maybe that's a good thing.